↓ Skip to main content

Acute Response to Hydrotherapy After a Simulated Game of Rugby

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
47 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
210 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Acute Response to Hydrotherapy After a Simulated Game of Rugby
Published in
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, October 2013
DOI 10.1519/jsc.0b013e31828151b6
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Despite lacking clear scientific evidence, hydrotherapies (water treatments) are accepted techniques to help team sport athletes recover from the physical effects of games. The purpose of this study was to assess the comparative effectiveness of cold water immersions (CWIs) and hot-and-cold contrast baths on athletes' recovery after a simulated game of rugby union. Twenty-four experienced, well-trained, male rugby union players were divided into 3 groups to receive recovery interventions: CWI for 1 group, contrast baths for a second group, and passive recovery for a third (control) group. Pregame and postgame measurements included a countermovement jump (normalized as a ratio to body weight), a sit-and-stretch flexibility test (centimeters), thigh circumference (to detect swelling; centimeters), and participants' perception of delayed-onset muscular soreness (DOMS, 100-mm visual analog scale). Statistical analysis included analysis of variance, and the calculation of omnibus effect sizes for each group ((Equation is included in full-text article.)) and the magnitudes of change within and between groups (Cohen's d). The participants in the contrast bath group reported statistically significantly greater measures of DOMS than participants in the control group did at 1 hour postintervention (p = 0.05, control group: d = 1.80; contrast bath: d = 4.75), and than participants in the CWI group did at 48 hours postintervention (p = 0.02, CWI: d = 1.17; contrast bath: d = 1.97). These findings provide modest evidence that contrast baths are a less effective strategy for recovery from rugby union than are CWI or passive recovery. Specifically, 2 × 5-minute CWI is superior to both contrasts baths and passive recovery in alleviating DOMS after exercise-induced muscle damage. Our recommendation for rugby union players aiming to attenuate the effects of DOMS postgames is to take 2 × 5-minute CWIs baths immediately after the game.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Qatar 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 207 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 17%
Student > Master 32 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 10%
Researcher 16 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 4%
Other 30 14%
Unknown 66 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 64 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 8%
Psychology 8 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 <1%
Other 9 4%
Unknown 75 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 July 2014.
All research outputs
#1,543,125
of 33,949,960 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#1,040
of 7,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,851
of 252,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#23
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,949,960 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 252,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.